if only faux news added a segment each time they told something that wasn't true. though the difference is Jon didn't know it at the time while faux knows they are shoveling you lies in five gallon buckets.

What really makes you scratch your head about that Norquist interview is how shallow his rationale is, and how much difficulty he has in defending it. Why there are so many Repugs who signed on to it, and how they weren't able to see how such a ridiculous pledge would only box them into a corner, is a clear reflection on the level of aptitude that pervades that party these days.

The guy who argued Bush v Gore in front of the SCOTUS, and against the recent strip search law. He's obviously quite sharp and astute...I'd love to hear more of his views on the SCOTUS.

With the clear trend of conservative-aligned rulings in the last 10 years or so, I've pretty much concluded that the SCOTUS really is primarily a political tool of the right wing. When Goldstein is asked his opinion on this, for all of his own ideologic views, he said he does not believe that this is the case. I actually believed him...for a moment, it restored a bit of faith in our governing system.

Barton has been a regular guest- I give Stewart credit for engaging him in a challenging yet respectful manner (in the context of a comedi-pundit). Still, it's Barton's circular, dizzying, twisted take on the presence of religion in our political and social system that makes me want to wring his scrawny neck.